Casting Reflections

For a while now, I've been making many little knick-knacks in my studio. All made out of wood and plaster, and now comes the time where I need to make them in a larger quantities.

This of course is not just a financial reason, though if I can made the same design many different times consistently it would be beneficial. It is also a personal growth and skills issue, I think understanding how to make casts of my work would be great for my practice!

I had a week off of work, so here's my reflections of what worked well, and what didn't.

1. Silcone rubber.

For this part of the process, I encased the object in clay and poured silicone rubber into the space, creating the mold. The like circles on the sides are keys to connect the two sides together.

So what did I learn from this? My workspace in more big enough. It's a table for yard work rather than casting or full own woodworking projects, so I will be buying a lovely new table that I can make equally messy!

Also that silicone is great, it allows for all details to be picked up whilst being flexible. The problem arises when wood fibres arllow the silicone in. The mould became hairy as the object was removed. I did manage to get rid of them, but would be nice not to have them in the first place.

The other thing is air. When I mixed the rubber, air got caught in the mix. There's no real evidence that this has effected my cast, but it could in the future.

2. Wood

As said earlier, wood is a great material I've fallen in love with. A versatile ingredient in all folk and cultural art that is available to all who wish to explore it.

However.

Wood is porous and fibrous. The clay can make it absorb its water causing it to expand. The silicone can also go into the fibres and cause problems I saw. The answer is clearly seal the object.

I have some button polish for this reason. Well, it's more for gilding on porous materials, but I will also use it for this reason.

I will stilll use wood, but I'm up for using more materials in the future. Plaster or metals for example. Talking about plaster.......

3. Plaster

I used plaster of paris to make the casts. This was where most of the problems came from.

You see, I don't have a vacuum chamber. I can't get the air out of the materials. So the amount of air bubbles in the casts were horrendous. I'm proud of what I did, but it showed I still have a lot to learn.

Sticking with the plaster, I tried out several consistencies. Some had more plaster, others more water. The ones that worked were the ones were I added the recommended amount of plaster to water on the box. But I know now, that's character growth.

The other problem highlighted the imperfections in the silicone mould. I hadn't created places for the air to escape once the pouring had begun. To rectify this, all i need to do is create little clay canals so air can get out and the plaster (or whatever) can fill that space.

4. Conclusions.

To finish, though disappointed that I wasn't somehow brilliant at the casting process straight away I still feeel they were good progressions. So here's where to go....

First, I need a better workstation. This is on order now, and I'll be able to do bigger work afterwards so it pays for itself.

Second, Be more prepared. Seal your wood. create more canals for air. Get a vacuum chamber. Be patient. I'm not the most patient person, in fact I'm starting to think something else is at play here. But that's different.

Lastly, practice. Especially with clay. I've been better with subtrative methods of making, but clay could really open up possibilities. Not just casting, but finished works or maquettes.

I'm confident with all this, and if it comes to, maybe accepting I need to get others to cast for me is not a failure, but a positive admission that sometimes you just need help. Art is a collaborative action after all.

So I leave you with a failed cast that had four casts in it that I poured plaster in just for fun!

Unmann, Unmade.

What a strange time to be alive.

The Far-Right is making a comeback, the environment is degrading at break neck speed, and all the money is somehow in the clutches of a handful of people.

And all I can think about is the term 'Unmann'.

To get into my head, you have to go on a journey with me. A journey I started about two years ago, after buying two books and seeing an exhibition.

One I will always bring up, the Davids Graeber and Wengrow with 'The Dawn of Everything'. Its a great exploration of humanity and its political organisation, mainly how we are not, or don't allow ourselves to be, as maleable as we were back in the past.

The second is Hana Videen, with 'The Word Hord'. Throughout her life she has collected old english words that have meanings and stories we have forgotten. If you are interested in etymology and the English language, buy this book. I have her next one called 'The Deor Hord' all about old english animals(1).

The final is an exhibition that was on at the Historik Museum of Oslo about the different ways of looking at human organisation and culture. This one introduced(2) me to Tapu, a Moari for respecting something sacred, something holy.

With these out of the way, lets dive in.

You see, the 'Unmann' is a strange concept to really get your head around. It was really used as a derogative of someone. To be named this, you have to sacrifice your humanity to gain something. But in the Word Hord, Videen explores it as both a formation of monsters and heroes.

"Un-mann in these contexts is undoubtedly negative, but another instance, in the Life of St Guthlac, is less clear. The saint's life describes Guthlac's boyhood and coming of age...... he thinks more and more frequently about 'the strong deeds of unmanna and earthly rulers'. If spending your time learning about birdsong is frowned upon, surely time spent pondering over the deeds of bad men is worse. So is 'bad men' really What unmanna means?' (p226-227)

Hana goes on to say that Bosworth-Toller brings up a second definition that fits un-mann as hero. 'Like a superhero', is said.

I understand that, even someone like Beowulf couldn't be seen as a man. In the stories he seems to transcend that definition through physical, honourific and political accumen. He understands that war will come from man's deceit, and he swims in the sea for days on end with full armour. In fact, the only time you see him not as an overpowered individual is when he is killed, where the population then mourn him and fear what is to come next(3).

So if we see the Unmann as someone who has transcended or descended from the category of 'man', we can interpret both Hero and Villian as something to respect and be wary of.

This brings me to Tapu, where we get the word Taboo from. This is sacred things that must never be transgressed. When we were in Oslo, Elizabeth and I saw an exhibition that explored man and their relationship to nature. The customs and traditions, as well as the exploitation and future solutions. Here there was an text about Tapu, which I'll show here.

I think its important to look at rules and laws from outside your worldview, as you can see patterns or other ways of navigating the world. Here, Tapu is a way for keeping the sacred away at a safe distance and not causing any disruption. Being wary of the gods is belief of fear and respect rather than love, but also recognising your place within the ecological or divine system and not breaking that.

So what does this have to do with my point of the 'Unmann' and the problems of today? Well, quite a lot I'd say.

Just like gods in pantheistic religions, being wary of those who hold divine power helps the group prosper and survive, those in power can be seen as 'Unmann' or gods. But in stories such as Beowulf and Greek epics for example, there are many characters who break these rules. Characters who kill those in sacred spaces or try to challenge the gods themselves. Those who succeed often feel a disconnection to others of their kin, either losing humanity or gaining divinity. Quite often it is the first.

What I'm trying to say(4), is that we should be sceptical of those who are trying to gain power over others. People who are willing to break rules that are there for the collective good for personal gain. If we don't value these rules, then we will be full of monsters that have sacrificed their soul for some sort of temporary power that will only bring harm to the majority of the worlds population.

Hell, we can see it now! Oil companies spilling into the Gulf of Mexico(5), Water companies in the UK are polluting our rivers because its cheaper than actually doing their jobs, Tech companies are actively excluding peoples identities just to be the good graces of a bunch of corrupt politicians! This is not a healthy world we live in, and there must be a better solution rather than just accept it. Unfortunately, hero worship and monster worship are too close together, so maybe even elevating someone should be analysed sceptically.

My case here is(6) Elon Musk. A man who in the past wanted to create clean energy, space travel and carbon zero cars. Elon went to talks about how to improve the human condition and spoke like an expert on everything. He could have been doing it from the kindness of his heart, but what we know now is that her wanted to be adored, worshipped even.

It has been found that all of his genius was not his, but others he has either bought or manipulated. He did not create Paypal, he did not create SpaceX, and he did not found Twitter(7). Elon is a quintessential 'Unmann', someone who has removed himself from the population to try to be a hero or, if failing that, a monster. A monster he has formed in siding with openly right wing parties all over the world to grow his influence.

So what can I finish with here? That trying to be more than human is a bad thing? That ambition is evil? I don't think that's what I'm saying.

I think that those in power must be questioned about their authority. Where does it come from, and how is it effecting the world?

We have our own taboos that are separate from anything spiritual, such as who owns what(8) and how much we should trust those who govern. But what if that taboo is actually a lie to keep us from thinking for ourselves, made so we don't question what has been taken away from us in the name of progression or security. Some sacred rules have been broken to make new rules that are artificial taboos that we are told not to dissent from by many corrupt 'Unmen'.

Being ambitious is not the same as being exploitative. Being a leader doesn't mean being cruel and manipulative. These artificial taboos can be broken, unmade and remade to make a better world for everyone.

So next time you see a person lauded for their acheivements, I think you should ask yourself, who is actually benefiting from this worship?

(1) I'm starting to write little stories based in a Beowulf/Mabinogion world, where spirits exist. I like Animism, its a great way of looking at the world, and thats how I'm constructing these stories.

(2) I knew it existed, But i didn't really know the meaning of it. I still don't, and would love to have a chat if anyone who wants to chat.

(3) And the Wyrm that kills him is a thinly veiled story of how greed can be the downfall of entire regimes. Also you could say that it's man's need to conquer nature that leads to deaths of others, where the theives steal the Wyrm's gold and the Wyrm then goes on a killing spree.

(4) The long way around I guess.

(5) It's the Gulf of Mexico, I'm not calling it the Gulf of America. The Mexica peoples were there first, and Texas used to be Spanish. So you know, stop.

(6) Unfortunately

(7) I will not call it X

(8) In England, we don't actually know who owns what land. So who is profiting from this ignorance?

The Haka is mightier than the pen

In the recent week, the New Zealand(1) Parliament put in a bill which has been a hotbed for indigenous rights. This bill, in short, wants to reinterpret who are New Zealanders in the treaty signed by the Europeans and the Moari people in 1840. The argument for such a reinterpretation is that New Zealand has changed a lot from 1840 and should include all those who call themselves New Zealanders. The argument against is that the bill is stripping away the rights of the Maori people.

There are a lot of other people who can do a better job at explaining this to you, and you should listen to them. From my perspective, indigenous cultures/ways of life are constantly under threat due to climate change, corporate greed and forgetting, and that this treaty was one of the only things cementing the indigenous rights in Aotearoa. For that reason, it should not be changed.

One thing I found really eye opening(2) was the performance of the Haka, the Maori dance made famous by the All Blacks, when the bill was proposed and the reaction to it. Comments under the videos(3) I watched ranged from support to condemnation, but a lot were saying that the invocation of the Haka made a joke of the parliamentary process. That if those who were representatives of those communities wanted actual change, they should go through the official channels and proper parliamentary processes.

The problem with this mode of thinking is that these communities have been using these channels to get things done, but have seen that the only way to be heard is to use more direct action to get their point across. Often these take the form of more identity based resistance, showing that they see a system that is both against them as well as totally unreliable. History is full of moments like this, with strikes and protests that provide hinderances or road blocks to get their point across(4).

But what really interested me is the fact that we are priveleging the western model of parliament in its purest strain. There rarely is a parliament that incorporates the native populations customs into its procedure(5). The primary model of democracy is one of representation by vote. If you dislike the vote, you are to accept the ruling as it is what the most amount of people want to happen. The problem with this is, when a bill such as the one in New Zealand comes up, those who are effected by the ruling are expected to accept it and move on.

The thing is, this attitude to 'democratic' practice forgets that when a group gets removed through its identity, its not really a democratic system. Even the parliament system I've been talking about isn't fully democratic, it fosters populism and division rather than fairness. It's only recently that women got the vote(6) in many countries that use this system, with a large percentage of representatives being of European and Colonial heritage. The removal of the Maori from the treaty might be seen as a 'leveling' of identity so all New Zealanders can benefit from it, but it purposefully ignores cultures and identities that do not benefit from the parliamentary system, such as many people of colour and indigenous groups.

So can we really say that the introduction of the Haka in an official space is 'cringe'? Often native customs and traditions are derided as embarrassing and behind the times, but what are the times really? I feel the to reinterpret the treaty as a move forward is to fall into the cult of progress, that we are trying to get somewhere. The problem with progress is that the destination is often decided by someone (or some group) else, who usually haven't thought about or even care about who will be effected by it. If you wanted a more unifyed New Zealand(7), you should want to build for what they need rather than what you feel they need. In education, STEM is prized over everything(8), to the point where places like New Zealand and Britain forced education to only be in english, meaning that anyone that wanted to learn about things, orally or literaturally, had to learn english, putting native language on second footing to the language of the coloniser. It's important to recognise that most STEM subjects are in an English standard, meaning that many languages cannot get information that they can actually process. This is not progress but alienation, and alienation can only combatted by ways outside the system.

I'm sympathetic to the Maori(9), as I see these traditions and customs not as a failure of a democratic process, but as a expression of one. One, as democracy takes many different forms with the European version being the prestiged, and an expression of discontent. An expression showing that they feel ignored, forgotten, with rights to their native lands being dictated away by people who claim that they should all be treated equally, when they have been treated dispicably in the past. If Act(10) really wanted to help relations, they would not start by legally defining everyone as native New Zealanders, but by recognising the differences and help according to need.

I doubt they will be doing that.

{Picture is from Exeter Museum, I cannot remember where it is from but the style is very Oceanic, a good example of art styles of the area}

(1) Or Aotearoa, the Moari name for the two islands.

(2) There are many I feel who would say that this isn't, and shouldn't be surprising

(3) BBC news instagram, Novara media (who I have a strange feeling with), as well as memes of the event itself.

(4) Things like the coal miners strikes showed that we needed them to do things, and they often just wanted to know what else was being offered to help them and their communities, something the Thatcher did not care to find a solution for.

(5) In 'The Dawn of Everything' by David Graeber and David Wengrow, you see this. The first peoples of America noticed this when their debates were not heeded by the coloniser by were expected by to be taken by the native. In 'These Savage Shores' by Caroline Dodds Pennock, this is also mirrored, where people travel to Europe and wonder why they need to change to this way when the Europeans could also learn from them.

(6) And ironically, it was New Zealand to do it first in 1893.

(7) Or insert any divided country you see fit.

(8) Not a bad thing, but there is more to life.

(9) As you can guess.

(10) The political party who started the bill.